9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[Heckler]

Jody Morris?

Morris Dancing!

English Jihadists Morris Danced with joy! Any vids?

I went into a sleezy pub that advertised "pole dancing", imagine my disappointment, the lady wasn't from Poland.

 

[ramonmercado]

Jody Morris?

Morris Dancing!

English Jihadists Morris Danced with joy! Any vids?

I went into a sleezy pub that advertised "pole dancing", imagine my disappointment, the lady wasn't from Poland.

Czech it out first next time.

 

[waitew]

This site does a good job of working back through the evidence of "Dances with Israelis":

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Dancing_Israelis

I'm curious,what do you think the site debunks? The site goes to great length to try to disprove foreknowledge. I never claimed foreknowledge. We got here because someone mentioned Muslims celebrating the 911 attacks. I was just pointed out that some Israelis seem to have been celebrating about it too.

 

[lawofnations]

Unbelievable.

Sure, the US has enough firepower to destroy the world. And that will deter any enemy who gives a damn about staying alive to enjoy their victory.

Now put yourself into the mindset of someone who not only has a fundamental belief that God guarantees they will win, no matter the odds, but also that dying in the name of your God will give you even more rewards than enjoying an earthly victory.

Suddenly that firepower isn't a deterrent. They kill you, they lose, you win. They fail to kill you, they lose, you win.

As has been pointed out, this applies to fundamentalists of all stripes, not just Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[waitew]

The most interesting thing about the dancing Israelis and you're debunking site is in the details. Let's take a close look at what the housewife (maria) who called the police on these guys actually said. She said she ,"heard a noise" & "the building shook" (that's the impact of flight 11 at 8:47) she went on to say her friend who lives upstairs in the same building,"called immediately" and told her to look at the WTC and that a "few minutes" later she see the Van & the men photographing,laughing,smiling etc.
What this tell us is that the men arrived in the park before Flight 175 struck the second tower.yet,they say they were there to "document the evident" because they live in place where they experience terrorism all the time. How did they know it was terrorism? At the time it was being reported as a small plane that accidentally hit the building (WTC1)! Remember General Winfield's comment? The Pentagon didn't know it was a terrorist attack until AFTER the second plane hit the second building. But these guys did!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

The most interesting thing about the dancing Israelis and you're debunking site is in the details. Let's take a close look at what the housewife (maria) who called the police on these guys actually said. She said she ,"heard a noise" & "the building shook" (that's the impact of flight 11 at 8:47) she went on to say her friend who lives upstairs in the same building,"called immediately" and told her to look at the WTC and that a "few minutes" later she see the Van & the men photographing,laughing,smiling etc.
What this tell us is that the men arrived in the park before Flight 175 struck the second tower.yet,they say they were there to "document the evident" because they live in place where they experience terrorism all the time. How did they know it was terrorism? At the time it was being reported as a small plane that accidentally hit the building (WTC1)! Remember General Winfield's comment? The Pentagon didn't know it was a terrorist attack until AFTER the second plane hit the second building. But these guys did!

It's not really that interesting unless you're now suggesting that they did have foreknowledge.

If they had foreknowledge can we then assume that the lack of dancing, high-fiving conspirators elsewhere on 9/11 is evidence of a lack of conspiracy? Or were the others just so cunning and devious that they decided to whoop and holler like a Jerry Springer audience behind closed doors?

 

[waitew]

Now put yourself into the mindset of someone who not only has a fundamental belief that God guarantees they will win, no matter the odds, but also that dying in the name of your God will give you even more rewards than enjoying an earthly victory..

You mean the Islamic fundamentalists who drink alcohol,snort coke & live with pink haired strippers? The one's who fought against our arch rival the USSR with US training & weapons carrying out a plan hatched by the CIA "the Afghan trap"[Quote Brezenski]? Who got their Visas at a known CIA "Visa mill" in Jeddah Saudi Arabia where unqualified applicants were allowed in for training at US military bases (including some of these guys). Those 'fundamentalists' without whose assistance the US military,CIA,FBI,NSA & DHS budgets would today be but a small fraction of what they are (The DHS wouldn't even exist). I'm sorry,I don't buy that.
Religion is nothing but a tool to control the masses. If you're a ruler (or anyone at the top) you're living high on the hog. You're rich,you're powerful & the only damn thing you're 'fanatic' about is staying rich and in power. You don't dare do a damn thing guaranteed to take you out of power.
Suicide attacks are for the expendable cannon fodder. They're ordered by the people in power in order for them to stay in power. Rulers don't really believe the religion they cram down the throats of their people. The people at the top know it's a scam.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Now put yourself into the mindset of someone who not only has a fundamental belief that God guarantees they will win, no matter the odds, but also that dying in the name of your God will give you even more rewards than enjoying an earthly victory..

You mean the Islamic fundamentalists who drink alcohol,snort coke & live with pink haired strippers? The one's who fought against our arch rival the USSR with US training & weapons carrying out a plan hatched by the CIA "the Afghan trap"[Quote Brezenski]? Who got their Visas at a known CIA "Visa mill" in Jeddah Saudi Arabia where unqualified applicants were allowed in for training at US military bases (including some of these guys). Those 'fundamentalists' without whose assistance the US military,CIA,FBI,NSA & DHS budgets would today be but a small fraction of what they are (The DHS wouldn't even exist). I'm sorry,I don't buy that.
Religion is nothing but a tool to control the masses. If you're a ruler (or anyone at the top) you're living high on the hog. You're rich,you're powerful & the only damn thing you're 'fanatic' about is staying rich and in power. You don't dare do a damn thing guaranteed to take you out of power.
Suicide attacks are for the expendable cannon fodder. They're ordered by the people in power in order for them to stay in power. Rulers don't really believe the religion they cram down the throats of their people. The people at the top know it's a scam.

So what do you think happened to those playboy jihadis? They got on planes which were later hijacked and they ended up crashing into an assortment of buildings. How do you explain that away? Coincidence?

 

[waitew]

If they had foreknowledge can we then assume that the lack of dancing, high-fiving conspirators elsewhere on 9/11 is evidence of a lack of conspiracy? Or were the others just so cunning and devious that they decided to whoop and holler like a Jerry Springer audience behind closed doors?

The others weren't twenty something year old kids. And yes,whooping it up behind closed doors was a damn good idea. See how much trouble doing it in a park has caused? But then that's the sort of mistakes we expect young people to make. Live & learn.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

If they had foreknowledge can we then assume that the lack of dancing, high-fiving conspirators elsewhere on 9/11 is evidence of a lack of conspiracy? Or were the others just so cunning and devious that they decided to whoop and holler like a Jerry Springer audience behind closed doors?

The others weren't twenty something year old kids. And yes,whooping it up behind closed doors was a damn good idea. See how much trouble doing it in a park has caused? But then that's the sort of mistakes we expect young people to make. Live & learn.

Twenty something year old kids that you claim were Mossad agents.

If that's the sort of behaviour you expect of young people, let alone ones recruited by one of the most successful intelligence agencies in the world, then you must know a uniquely stupid group of young people.

 

[waitew]

Twenty something year old kids that you claim were Mossad agents.

I didn't originate that claim. That was the conclusion of the FBI according to a 'The Forward' a well known Jewish newspaper in New York among others.
By the way,what do you expect intelligence agencies to recruit? Boy Scouts?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Twenty something year old kids that you claim were Mossad agents.

I didn't originate that claim. That was the conclusion of the FBI according to a 'The Forward' a well known Jewish newspaper in New York among others.
By the way,what do you expect intelligence agencies to recruit? Boy Scouts?

It's of no relevance whether you originated the claim or not - you repeated it. You are also insinuating that they had foreknowledge.

As for the type of candidate I would expect intelligence agencies to recruit - I would expect them to go for the kind of operative who is apparently capable of keeping secret for over a decade their involvement in a plot which murdered thousands and lead to a series of wars. There must be hundreds if not thousands of them out there.

The fact that you can't identify them, of course, merely proves how well they've worked alongside the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex to suppress the truth.

 

[Jerry_B]

Twenty something year old kids that you claim were Mossad agents.

I didn't originate that claim. That was the conclusion of the FBI according to a 'The Forward' a well known Jewish newspaper in New York among others.
By the way,what do you expect intelligence agencies to recruit? Boy Scouts?

So now you believe the FBI and the media, the latter you've previously claimed is controlled? Aren't they all part of the machine belonging to 'Them'?

Either way, a link or two showing this FBI/Jewish newspaper/New York Times would be helpful.

And then we also have to believe that an intelligence agency hires and operates people who do stupidly obvious things in foreign countries in a way that attracts attention to themselves.

 

[McAvennie]

The most interesting thing about the dancing Israelis and you're debunking site is in the details. Let's take a close look at what the housewife (maria) who called the police on these guys actually said. She said she ,"heard a noise" & "the building shook" (that's the impact of flight 11 at 8:47) she went on to say her friend who lives upstairs in the same building,"called immediately" and told her to look at the WTC and that a "few minutes" later she see the Van & the men photographing,laughing,smiling etc.
What this tell us is that the men arrived in the park before Flight 175 struck the second tower.yet,they say they were there to "document the evident" because they live in place where they experience terrorism all the time.

Perhaps they had stopped their white van in the car park before the attack and they had no idea it was going to happen. Then it happened and being that they were already there decided to film it?

How did they know it was terrorism? At the time it was being reported as a small plane that accidentally hit the building (WTC1)! Remember General Winfield's comment? The Pentagon didn't know it was a terrorist attack until AFTER the second plane hit the second building. But these guys did!

I'm guessing their quote of "terrorism happens all the time" was made when they were interviewed after the event had happened, when everyone knew it was terrorism...?

 

[kamalktk]

Either way, a link or two showing this FBI/Jewish newspaper/New York Times would be helpful.

First "they" printed it and put it on the internet so people could see it. Knowing that some people would start putting the pieces together of the puzzle, they removed it from the internet. What about all the copies of the paper you say? Surely there's people who collect the papers and they would have a copy they could scan in for the world to see? Well, "they" planned for that too, and kept track of all the papers and microfiche archival copies sold so "they" could break into wherever they were kept and steal them. But wouldn't that mean the odd occurrence of missing copies of the paper from that date ("Why is 10 March missing from my and everyone else' stack of March 200x?"). Well, "they" thought of that too, having fake copies and microfiches of the particular paper printed up, so that when the original were stolen from people, the fakes could be put in their place so there wouldn't be any missing dates.

All part of the master plan to get some people to claim these facts existed, but then be unable to produce them, so that other people would discount the TRUTH of what the first group was saying. Also the many, many conspirators and agents involved in this part of the plot would never talk. See? Easy as pie.

 

[Analis]

So what do you think happened to those playboy jihadis? They got on planes which were later hijacked and they ended up crashing into an assortment of buildings. How do you explain that away? Coincidence?

Why not ? I thought you believed that almost everything that happened on this day was the result of coincidences and odd happenings...
That being said, I still see no reliable evidence that they boarded these planes.





http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-10/n ... ast-minute

New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute
Submitted by Shoestring on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:28am


Thomas McGuinness, the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 before it became the first plane to be hijacked in the 9/11 attacks, only assigned himself to be on the flight the afternoon before September 11, 2001, and pushed from it the original co-pilot, who had put his name down for the flight less than half an hour earlier. This new information means that, curiously, half of the pilots and co-pilots originally at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks are now known to have been assigned to the doomed flights at the last minute, very shortly before September 11. Additionally, more than half of the flight attendants and many of the passengers are known to have, similarly, not originally been booked onto those flights.

The details of McGuinness's late assignment to Flight 11 were revealed recently by Steve Scheibner, who was originally going to be the plane's co-pilot. In a short film released on the Internet just before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Scheibner described how McGuinness came to replace him on Flight 11 and thereby saved his life.

FLIGHT 11 HAD 'NO PILOT ASSIGNED TO IT YET'
At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Scheibner was a fundamentalist Baptist pastor and a commander in the Naval Reserves, but he also worked part-time as an on-call pilot for American Airlines. [1] He had been available to fly on September 11. "So at about three o'clock in the afternoon of September 10," Scheibner recalled, "I sat down at the computer and I logged in like I normally do, to check to see if there was any unassigned flying for the next day. And sure enough there was one trip that was available on September 11. It was American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston's Logan Airport to Los Angeles." Scheibner looked at the flight and could see that "there was no pilot assigned to it yet."

Scheibner checked if there were any reserve pilots available to take the flight. But, he said, "It just so happened [that] on September 11, 2001, there was only one guy available to go flying on that day and that was me." He therefore put his name down for Flight 11. He told his wife he would be flying the following day and packed his bags ready for the trip.

Once a particular pilot signed up for a flight, as Scheibner had done, there would follow a "30-minute window of opportunity" during which, if another pilot wanted to take their place, it would be possible for that pilot to push them from the flight. But at the end of that 30-minute period, Scheibner said, the "final assignment" of the pilot to the flight would be made when someone from American Airlines called them and said, "Hey, we wanna let you know you've been assigned a trip." "Once you have that phone conversation," Scheibner said, "even if a line pilot wants to, they can't bump you off that trip." However, on September 10, Scheibner recalled, "I waited for the phone call and the phone never rang." Later on, during the evening, Scheibner had concluded, "You know, they never assigned that trip to me."

ORIGINAL CO-PILOT PUSHED FROM FLIGHT 11
What happened, according to Scheibner, was that in the minutes after he signed up for Flight 11, Thomas McGuinness pushed him from the flight. McGuinness was one of American Airlines' "line holding pilots" who was a "little bit senior" to Scheibner. Scheibner said that, unknown to him, at "about three o'clock in the afternoon" of September 10, McGuinness "went over to the computer and he logged in, and he looked and he saw that [Flight 11] was open, but my name had been penciled in." Since McGuinness was "still in that 30-minute window of opportunity," he called American Airlines and asked: "Am I legal to take this trip? In other words, can I bump Scheibner off that trip?" American Airlines replied, "Yep, you're legal for that trip, but you gotta give us a call back in the next 20 minutes, or else we're gonna finalize the assignment."

Having decided to take the flight, McGuinness called the airline again and said, "Yeah, I'll take that trip." At that moment, Scheibner said, American Airlines "erased my name off the trip [and] they assigned it to Tom [McGuinness]." As a result, McGuinness was the co-pilot of Flight 11 when it took off from Boston the following morning and became a victim of the 9/11 attacks, while Scheibner's life was spared. [2]

For one pilot to take another's place, as McGuinness did, is a rare event. Scheibner recently noted, "I can count three times in 20 years at American Airlines that I've been bumped from a trip the night before." [3]

On September 11, although Scheibner knew about the terrorist attacks, it did not initially click that one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center had been the flight he'd signed up for the day before. He only realized this fact that evening. He had been thinking, "I wonder who was on that flight?" and so went on his computer and logged in with American Airlines. He recalled: "I logged in and when the screen came up in front of me, it looked exactly like it did the day before when it had that trip and it had my name penciled in. Except this time it had this trip sequence, my name wasn't there, and it said these three words: 'Sequence. Failed. Continuity.'" These words are the code the airline uses to say, "The trip never made it to its destination." [4]

THREE OTHER 9/11 PILOTS REPLACED ORIGINAL PILOTS AT LAST MINUTE
While Scheibner's account is remarkable, it is not unique. Several other pilots are known to have similarly narrowly avoided becoming victims of the 9/11 attacks. As well as Thomas McGuinness, at least three more of the eight pilots initially at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks were only assigned to those flights very shortly before September 11.

John Ogonowski, the pilot of Flight 11, was not originally supposed to be on that flight. The original pilot had been Walter Sorenson. But Sorenson was replaced by Ogonowski, who, according to the Georgetown Record, had seniority over him "and requested to fly that day." Sorenson's life was therefore spared by the "last-minute change of pilots." [5]

Either the pilot or the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which reportedly crashed into the Pentagon, was not originally scheduled to be on that flight. But, the New York Times reported: "Bill Cheng, an American Airlines pilot who normally flies Flight 77, changed his plans in late August and applied for time off on [September 11] so he could go camping. When another pilot signed up for the slot, Mr. Cheng's application was accepted." Whether Cheng was replaced by Captain Charles Burlingame or by First Officer David Charlebois was unstated. [6]

And Jason Dahl, the pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was not originally supposed to be on the doomed flight. But he reportedly wanted to put in extra hours so he could take time off for his wedding anniversary on September 14. [7] Therefore, "At his request, [his wife] Sandy Dahl traded for the flight on their home computer." Days after the request, Dahl "would pilot Flight 93 to San Francisco, having traded a trip later in the month for this one," journalist and author Jere Longman wrote. [8]

MANY FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND PASSENGERS ONLY BOOKED ONTO 9/11 FLIGHTS AT LAST MINUTE
What is more, over half of the flight attendants--13 out of a total of 25--were not originally scheduled to be on the four targeted aircraft, and many of the passengers--including almost half of those on Flight 93--were not originally booked to be on those flights. [9]

Furthermore, these statistics are based only on information that has been reported to the public. It is quite possible that others of the pilots originally at the controls of the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks were only assigned to the flights at the last minute, and took the place of another pilot. Similarly, there could have been additional passengers and flight attendants who were only booked onto the four flights at the last minute, but this fact has not yet been reported. Certainly, further investigation is needed to look into this possibility. The fact that Thomas McGuinness was only revealed to have been a last-minute replacement for the original co-pilot of Flight 11 in August 2011 shows that important new information about 9/11 can surface even now, more than 10 years after the attacks.

What, though, is the reason for the bizarre and inexplicable finding that so many crew members and passengers on Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 on September 11 were not originally supposed to be on those flights? An unrestrained new investigation of 9/11 needs to examine this matter thoroughly. The official account of 9/11 cannot explain this oddity. The answers investigators find could therefore fundamentally change our understanding of what exactly happened during the terrorist attacks.

NOTES
[1] Margaret Talbot, "A Mighty Fortress." New York Times, February 27, 2000; Dennis Hoey, "Prayers Answered, and a Church Finds Land for New Home." Portland Press Herald, March 1, 2003.
[2] Peter Scheibner, In My Seat: A Pilot's Story From Sept. 10th-11th. August 30, 2011.
[3] "Pilot Reflects on Being Spared From 9/11 Cockpit." WYFF 4, September 10, 2011.
[4] Peter Scheibner, In My Seat.
[5] Sally Applegate, "Flight 11 Crew Not Forgotten." Georgetown Record, September 18, 2003; "A Time to Reflect." Georgetown Record, September 7, 2005.
[6] Elaine Sciolino and John H. Cushman Jr., "A Route out of Washington, Horribly Changed." New York Times, September 13, 2001.
[7] "Pilot: Jason Dahl." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28, 2001; Jane Pauley, "No Greater Love." NBC News, September 11, 2006.
[8] Susan Besze Wallace, "Legacy of Sept. 11 Pilot Comforts Widow." Denver Post, December 16, 2001; Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 1.
[9] "Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11." Shoestring 9/11, March 31, 2008.

 

[Analis]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/ ... tacks.html

9/11 Commissioner and Co-Chair of Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 Say in Sworn Declarations that Saudi Government Linked to 9/11 Attacks
Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 01:55 am >Washingtonsblog

Two Senators with Access to Classified Information Say Saudi Government Backed 9/11 Attack

Two former senators – one a 9/11 Commissioner, the other the co-chair of the joint Congressional inquiry into 9/11 – state in sworn declarations that the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attack.

The New York Times reports:

For more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.

Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

As we noted last year:

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, previously stated that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here).

Today, Graham called for a new 9/11 investigation. As Raw Story notes:

Graham on Monday called on the U.S. government to reopen its investigation into 9/11 after a report found that links between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers were never disclosed by the FBI to the 2002 joint Congressional intelligence committee investigating the attacks.

“In the final report of the congressional inquiry, there was a chapter related primarily to the Saudi role in 9/11 that was totally censored, every word of the chapter has been withheld from the public,” Graham said on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show.

“Some of the other questions we ought to be asking are if we know that the Saudis who lived in San Diego and now apparently in Sarasota received substantial assistance, what about the Saudis who lived in Phoenix, Arizona? Or Arlington, Virginia? … What was happening in those places?”

“I believe these are questions for which there are definitive answers, but the American people and largely their elected representatives have been denied that information.”

(And see this.)

The Times continues:

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan.

***

The Saudis are seeking to have the case dismissed in part because they say American inquiries — including those in which Mr. Graham and Mr. Kerrey took part — have essentially exonerated them. A recent court filing by the Saudis prominently cited the 9/11 Commission’s “exhaustive” final report, which “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi individuals funded” Al Qaeda.

But Mr. Kerrey and Mr. Graham said that the findings should not be seen as an exoneration and that many important questions about the Saudis’ role had never been fully examined, partly because their panels simply did not have the time or resources given their wider scope.

Terry Strada of New Vernon, N.J., whose husband died in the World Trade Center, said it was “so absurd that it’s laughable” for the Saudis to claim that the federal inquiries had exonerated them.

Unanswered questions include the work of a number of Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to Al Qaeda, as well as the role of a Saudi citizen living in San Diego at the time of the attacks, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had ties to two of the hijackers and to Saudi officials, Mr. Graham said in his affidavit.

Still, Washington has continued to stand behind Saudi Arabia publicly, with the Justice Department joining the kingdom in trying to have the lawsuits thrown out of court on the grounds that the Saudis are protected by international immunity.

As we’ve repeatedly noted:

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11

Indeed, while everyone remembers the false allegations about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, most forget that the other primary justification for the war was the false linkage between Iraq and 9/11.

The failure to really investigate 9/11 led us into a disastrous war … which has virtually bankrupted our country.

Unfortunately, the endless wars in the Middle East and North Africa are about oil, not national security (and see this).

So we have idiots like MSNBC talking head Joe Scarborough saying that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it.

Good try to reopen the inquiry from the Saoudi angle, but it didn't work :

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... se_-judge/

Saudis to remain out of 9/11 damages case -judge

3/15/2012

NEW YORK, March 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. judge overseeing a case seeking damages from foreign governments over the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks refused on Thursday to reinstate claims against Saudi Arabia.

The plaintiffs -- mostly the families of victims of the attacks -- had asked U.S. District Judge George Daniels to reinstate claims against Saudi Arabia and a related charity. They cited a November appeals court decision allowing similar claims to proceed against Afghanistan.

But Daniels said the November opinion by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was not sufficient grounds to bring back the Saudis, who had been dismissed as a defendant in 2005.

"The fact that Afghanistan remains in the case for now is not a reason to reinstate the cases against the Saudi Kingdom and the High Commission, which have been closed for years," Daniels said.

Stephen Cozen, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs at Thursday's hearing, said they would appeal Daniels' decision.

Out of the over 200 entities and governments originally sued by the plaintiffs about 100 are still listed as defendants, and active litigation is ongoing with less than 10, a lawyer involved in the case said.

The consolidated case is In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, no. 1:03-md-01570.

For plaintiffs: Stephen A. Cozen of Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia.

For defendants: Michael Kellogg of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C.

(Reporting By Basil Katz)

 

[rynner2]

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-10/n ... ast-minute

New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute

Well, thanks for that, Analis. I was on the point of logging off this thread because it had become so boring, but at last something new (to me) emerges, justifying the thread title.

(I had considered suggesting the title be changed to 'More disinformation and confusion on 911' )

 

[waitew]

Perhaps they had stopped their white van in the car park before the attack and they had no idea it was going to happen. Then it happened and being that they were already there decided to film it

They said they saw it on the internet and went to the roof of their building but couldn't see it from there. So,they drove to the park (higher ground) about a 5 minute drive. So,if they are to be believed,they weren't already there when the attack began. Even so,they could not have known it was terrorism (rather than an accident) at the time. Why would Israeli intelligence be interested in a plane accidentally crashing into a building?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Why not ? I thought you believed that almost everything that happened on this day was the result of coincidences and odd happenings...
That being said, I still see no reliable evidence that they boarded these planes.

Then you thought wrong. Perhaps you misinterpretted my scepticism that everything that happened that day was not a coincidence.

There's plenty of evidence that those accused of the hijacking were on the planes but I've no doubt it could be dismissed as circumstantial if there was a will to do so. However, one would have to ask if it were not these men then who exactly was responsible for flying three aircraft into buildings resulting in rather severe cases of death for themselves.

The two points above seem to dovetail rather neatly in the case of this "new" information...

New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute

Does this information really point towards an inside job? It does seem like coincidence. After all if there were some great conspiracy afoot would the pilots not have been selected and placed much earlier (after consultation with the airlines who would now presumably be partner to the conspiracy) rather than scrambling around at the last minute to allocate them? Or did the auditions for suicidal pilots willing to sacrifice themselves for a neocon false flag operation take longer than expected?

Seems to me it does more to dismiss the notion of conspiracy than to support it.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Perhaps they had stopped their white van in the car park before the attack and they had no idea it was going to happen. Then it happened and being that they were already there decided to film it

They said they saw it on the internet and went to the roof of their building but couldn't see it from there. So,they drove to the park (higher ground) about a 5 minute drive. So,if they are to be believed,they weren't already there when the attack began. Even so,they could not have known it was terrorism (rather than an accident) at the time. Why would Israeli intelligence be interested in a plane accidentally crashing into a building?

Good question. What do you think the answer is?

 

[waitew]

Good question. What do you think the answer is?

Let the chips fall where they may. The obvious answer is that Israeli intelligence would have NO interesting in 'documenting' an event that within 5 minutes had every TV camera in New York focused on it. Of course they had foreknowledge. So,did the US Government.

(Stu edit - sorted out tags)

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Let the chips fall where they may. The obvious answer is that Israeli intelligence would have NO interesting in 'documenting' an event that within 5 minutes had every TV camera in New York focused on it. Of course they had foreknowledge. So,did the US Government.

I'm sorry but I don't really follow this logic.

They had foreknowledge. Their operatives went out of their way to document it because they knew it was a false flag operation and one that was going to have every TV camera in New York focused on it.

Is this what you're suggesting?

 

[Analis]

Why not ? I thought you believed that almost everything that happened on this day was the result of coincidences and odd happenings...
That being said, I still see no reliable evidence that they boarded these planes.

Then you thought wrong. Perhaps you misinterpretted my scepticism that everything that happened that day was not a coincidence.

There's plenty of evidence that those accused of the hijacking were on the planes but I've no doubt it could be dismissed as circumstantial if there was a will to do so.

If you mean the kind of evidence we have already discussed (terrorists who were not in the first version of the boarding lists, the Mohammed Atta's will that was where it had nothing to do, phone calls that couldn't have been made, missing videos from the aiprport etc...), no, thanks. We have already been there, and I am past this kind of discusion.

The two points above seem to dovetail rather neatly in the case of this "new" information...

New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute

Does this information really point towards an inside job? It does seem like coincidence.

After all if there were some great conspiracy afoot would the pilots not have been selected and placed much earlier (after consultation with the airlines who would now presumably be partner to the conspiracy) rather than scrambling around at the last minute to allocate them? Or did the auditions for suicidal pilots willing to sacrifice themselves for a neocon false flag operation take longer than expected?

No one says that they were suicidal. What we have there is more evidence that these flights were unusual. What a coincidence that in addition they were boarded by terrorists...

 

[kamalktk]

Half the pilots being swapped at the last minute is not evidence of anything in particular without knowing how common pilot swapping is on cross country flights in general. Flight swapping for crew was not uncommon when my uncle was a commercial pilot (and my aunt a stewardess), and saying that half the pilots of the 9/11 planes were swapped at the last minute is suspicious, well, you have an insignificant sample size of 8.

Of the four last minute swaps, one pilot was due to be married 9/14. So you'd have to figure as part of a conspiracy that he was volunteering to die right before his wedding. Except it was his wife that booked him on that flight. So she, or both of them, would have to be in on it.

As far as the passengers/other crew, I went to the source cited, "Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11." Shoestring 9/11, March 31, 2008. ", which is here: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-pilots-passengers-and.html. Where one can read for themselves the reasons why these people were unlucky enough to be on the planes. Unless one assumes that all these people were either in on the conspiracy and arranged to be on the plane, or were put on the plane with the foreknowledge of the disaster (and why would conspirators do so when it would stand out as being unusual?), the reasons for these people's presence is rather more prosaic, things like "had been scheduled to take an earlier flight but postponed the trip in order to make time to attend his son's soccer game."

 

[Analis]

Again, that's not so much the individual situations, but the repetition of individual situations that may be of significance.


A video from German investigator Paul Schreyer, summarising facts and interrogations on Colonel Robert Marr :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xorxwq ... ne-us_news

Thesis :
The commander of the north-east sector of the US air defence (NEADS) tried successfully at least five times to obstruct or slow down the military response to the hijackings on 9/11

We start with the acting persons.
The chain of command on 9/11 looked like this :
George W. Bush. President.
Donald Rumsfeld. Secretary of Defense.
General Ralph Eberhart. Commander NORAD USA and Canada.
Major General Larry Arnold. Commander NORAD Continental United States.
Colonel Robert Marr. Commander NEADS (NORAD North East Sector).
Major Kevin Nasypany. Mission Crew Commander (NEADS).

Interestingly the top of this chain of command was empty on 9/11. President Bush spent the morning in Florida and stayed out of the loop in terms of military orders. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld abandoned his post and was not available for his air defense subordinates during the attack. The real management of the air defense on the morning of 9/11 was actually in the hands of two men, even further down in the chain of command. Major Kevin Nasipany, Mission Crew Commander at NEADS, and his direct superior : Colonel Robert Marr, Commander of NEADS. The decisions of these two men had great effect on 9/11. It was their direct responsability to intercept the hijacked airliners with fighter jets. Unfortunately one of them - the highest ranking officer on the left - supposedly tried at least five times to obstruct this process.

Here are the facts.


Obstruction No1.
Two fighter pilots at Otis Air Force Base, 33 km northeast of New York, were alarmed and sat in their jets ready to start their engines at around 8:42, even before any hijacked plane had hit teh World Trde Center towers. But then they had to wait. Colonel Marr, who could have ordered them to take off immediately, chose not to do that. He made an unnecessary phone call with his boss, General Arnold, instead. In effect the order to take off was delayed for crucial 3 to 4 minutes. Without that delay the pilots could possibly have intercepted the second hijacked plane, which crashed at 9:03.
Sources : Internal interview by the 9/11-Commission with Major Daniel Nash, 14.10.03; Interview with Colin Scoggins, Boston Air Route Traffic COntrol Center, 28.10.07; NEADS Tapes, Channel 2.

Obstruction No2.
At 9:09, after both of the towers were hit, Major Nasypany wanted to launch a second pair of fighters from Langley Air Force Base, 200 km southeast of Washington, to place a barrrier near the capital. A wise request. But Colonel Marr, his superior, refused to do this. In the end the order to scramble the Langley jets was given no sooner than 9:24. 15 important minutes were lost. Had Marr ordered the scramble at 9:09, as requested, the jets could have reached the Pentagon before it was attacked at 9:37.
Sources : Internal interviews by the 9/11-Commission with Nasipany and Marr, 22./23.01.04; NEADS Tapes, Channel 2.

Obstruction No3.
Captain Craig Borgstrom was the "supervisor of flying" at Langley Air Force Base. He was responsible for coordinating the Langley pilots during a mission, giving them orders from the ground, and maintaining the flow of information.
Shortly befor 9:24 he got a phone call from NEADS leadership - meaning COlonel Marr - ordering him to leave his coordination post on the ground and to take off as a third pilot. This was highly unusual, as an alert mission is always consisting of two fighters. The order brought actually no advantages for the air defense but a major drawback : no officer was left on the ground to keep in touch with the Langley-Pilots.
So when they were finally sent also in the wrong and unintended direction, not for Washington, but straight out to the east over the ocean (a scandal that remains even 10 years later still unexplained, by the way), nobody could reach them and tell them to turn around to save the pentagon. With Borgstrom on the ground, this would have been no problem. Marr decided otherwise.
Sources : Interview with Captain Craig Borgstrom by author Leslie Filson, "Touching History", 2008, pp.118, 148 ; NEADS Tapes, Channel 2, Transcripts pp.44-45.

Obstruction No4.
When Vice President Cheney ordered his "Shoot down order", it was again Colonel Marr who decided not to convey this order to the pilots. In 2002 he also lied about this in a TV interview and offered no further explanation.
That means : even if any fighter pilot had reached one hijacked airliner after this order had been given, he wouldn't have known that he had actually clearance to shoot.
Colonel Marr had prevented it.
Sources : 9/11-Commission, 12th Public Hearing, 17.06.04, Transcript pp.61-62 ; ABC News, "9/11 : Interviews by Peter Jennings", 11.09.02 ; John Farmer, "The Ground Truth", 2009, p.261.

Obstruction No5.
When the commander of Syracuse Airbase called Major Nasypany to offer fighter jets, he stated that his pilots could be airborne within 15 minutes with hot guns. Nasypany appreciated the offer : "Hot guns, well that's good enough for me" - and gave the Syracuse Commander the phone number of his superior, Colonel Marr - "if you want to talk to him". Syracuse did this and repeated the offer to Marr : airborne with hot guns in 15 minutes, with heat-seeking missiles in 30 minutes, or with "slammers" (missiles with active radar) in an hour, because it would take some time to put these missiles on board.
Marr chose the unnecessary : "I want it all".
Sources : NEADS Tapes, Channel 2, 10:12 ;
Aviation Week, "Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks", 03.06.02.

So he delayed the start of fighter jets again.
As he had done it with the Otis pilots and then with the Langley pilots. As he had ordered Borgstrom away from his coordination post, and as he had prevented the transfer of the "Shoot down order" to the pilots.
Five obstructions. And one man responsible.


To clarify :
with al these facts now available, it's of course still not proven that Colonel Marr made all these decisions in order to intentionally weaken the air defense.
This is only a thesis so far. It could be false. But one thing is also clear : to get to the bottom of this it needs a new public investigation of 9/11.

 

[Jerry_B]

with al these facts now available, it's of course still not proven that Colonel Marr made all these decisions in order to intentionally weaken the air defense.

Quite. This line pretty much undoes the whole slew of text that goes before it. Also, using terms like 'abandonned his post' is hardly what one would call the outlook of a neutral stance - it seems instead to be a deliberate effort to paint things in a certain light.

 

[waitew]

with al these facts now available, it's of course still not proven that Colonel Marr made all these decisions in order to intentionally weaken the air defense.

Quite. This line pretty much undoes the whole slew of text that goes before it.

Except,now we're down to the question of INTENT. So,I assume you now accept that Col. Marr's actions did indeed obstruct America's air defences and it's merely a question of IF that was his intent. This is like the difference between Manslaughter & murder. I'd like to hear some 'innocent' explanations for his PATTERN of obstruction.

 

[waitew]

Let the chips fall where they may. The obvious answer is that Israeli intelligence would have NO interesting in 'documenting' an event that within 5 minutes had every TV camera in New York focused on it. Of course they had foreknowledge. So,did the US Government.

I'm sorry but I don't really follow this logic.

They had foreknowledge. Their operatives went out of their way to document it because they knew it was a false flag operation and one that was going to have every TV camera in New York focused on it.

Is this what you're suggesting?

Actually,documenting the event makes no sense at all. As I pointed out earlier,every TV camera in New York would be documenting the event. So,what were they really doing? Were they 'souvenir' photos? Serial killers often take souvenirs from their victims (sometimes photographs). I don't know.I do know that those responsible for 911 were operating from the inside. If there was foreign involvement,it wont come out until we get to those who were operating from the inside.

 

[McAvennie]

Perhaps they had stopped their white van in the car park before the attack and they had no idea it was going to happen. Then it happened and being that they were already there decided to film it

They said they saw it on the internet and went to the roof of their building but couldn't see it from there. So,they drove to the park (higher ground) about a 5 minute drive. So,if they are to be believed,they weren't already there when the attack began. Even so,they could not have known it was terrorism (rather than an accident) at the time. Why would Israeli intelligence be interested in a plane accidentally crashing into a building?

Well I guess they were not interviewed about why they were there immediately. By the time they were questioned it would have become known that it was a terror attack.

they say they were there to "document the evident" because they live in place where they experience terrorism all the time.

There is nothing suspicious about them wanting to document the event. It depends on your background. Professionally I come from a journalism background so if I was there my first reaction would be to document the event. My girlfriend, however, would be more likely to panic and freak out than think of taking photos.

They live in a country where terrorism happens all the time, so they will presumably be used to seeing explosions in the street, bombings etc... Ergo, to them terrorism is likely to be a first reaction, and even if not they may not have known it was terrorism but simply an accident but as they are used to seeing dramatic events happen more regularly than others their first reaction wasn't to panic but to document the events.

After the fact once it was known it was terrorism and by the time they were interviewed as to why they were filming it then the 'we were there documenting the event' and 'we are used to terrorism all the time' sentences become connected even if initially the two statements are not compatible from your standpoint.